Hello, DemocraticUnderground! Want To Fight For The Public Option?

[slinkerwink]

I posted a diary over at Dailykos about the stupidity of some Democrats in opposing the public option as an essential part of health care reform. I was pissed and mad as hell when I read this news article about Senate Ben Nelson, one of those stupid Democrats, suggesting that the public-option be used as a "trigger" or as a "fail-safe" option after seven years have passed if private health insurance hasn't brought down the costs of health care.

If you want to fight for the passage of a strong, robust Medicare-like public option, then please feel free to call the phone numbers of Senators Schumer, Nelson, Kennedy, and Brown to urge them to support the passage of a strong, robust Medicare-like public option.

Feel free to go to the diary here, and use these same phone numbers to support single-payer as well. I want us to push HARD from the left to keep these so-called Democrats on the straight line.

I hope you'll join with me and others in the fight for actual health care reform!

[slinkerwink]

1. let's kick some asses!

[Occam Bandage]

2. Certainly much more effective than just writing angry posts here. nt

[slinkerwink]

3. I do hope people will call and report back in! Let's channel that anger!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Great diary! Thanks. Will call as usual. nt

[slinkerwink]

6. thanks for calling!

[NewJeffCT]

5. I still think it's amazing that we need to push Democrats

to adopt a popular position like single-payer... heck, to even have single-payer get a seat at the table.

[slinkerwink]

7. you've got to give them a verbal kick in the pants every now and then

[redqueen]

10. Have you paid much attention to politics over... oh... I dunno...

the last 30 years?

This is hardly surprising. It went into overdrive with Clinton. Finally the Dem electorate seems to be paying a bit more attention.

[slinkerwink]

19. the electorate is very active

and really, the Democratic Party shouldn't think we're not paying attention to what they're doing, because we ARE.

[redqueen]

22. Did you get the MoveOn email about the ad campaign for this?

They asked for $150,000 in two days... they got $270,000 in ONE.

:bounce:

[slinkerwink]

26. I did! That was great, although I think they should've

explained what the new target of $350,000 would be used for.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. As a post earlier pointed out, It's not Dems vs Repos on health care. It's

Washington DC vs The American People

[redqueen]

29. Insurance racket + M$M + DC vs. The American People

Not exactly a battle we can afford to shrink from.

[Oregone]

8. LOL.

People went from fighting for single payer to advocating a fight for the "public option" (a beast, that when born, surely won't resemble what its early advocates envision).

[slinkerwink]

9. then don't call if you think that way

[redqueen]

12. No... some fight for single-payer... some fight to keep this plank in.

Pick whichever you'd rather do. They both help.

[slinkerwink]

13. exactly.

[mmonk]

28. There is nothing that says you can't fight for both (and ending up with something).

The key is to not to just sit and let things come at you.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. I'm too stupid. I like the cost savings of single payer. I'm so stupid i'm fighting for that.

But you can fight for the public option with it's means testing and incentive for costs to raise. And if we have a public debate on the merits of the competing plans, I will publicly call for you and your allies to be included in that debate!

You have my word on that.

[slinkerwink]

15. I'm not saying you're stupid. Please do fight for what you

want.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. This is a guy you need to contact

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/wyden-is-winning-over-the-gop-on-healthcare-2009-05-18.html

Wyden.

Did you see this?

[slinkerwink]

30. the labor unions are going hard after him

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I heard that this morning from a guy who is close to SEIU.

The AFLCIO is backing Medicare for all last I read.

I would so much rather that it was single payer vs the Wyden bill. The public would be so unified and we could cream them through mobilization.

The weakness of the O'baucus bill is cost control. I know the plan it to eventually squeeze out the private companies. But how is subsidizing them going to make them go away? And they have no incentive to control costs. And the outlays will be enormous and growing.

Both Baucus and Wyden dream of getting 70+ votes. I'd take single payer with 51 votes in a heartbeat.

I think SEIU and their allies making the early decision to kick single payer off the table was a major strategic mistake. Every meeting i attended back in Dec and Jan people were coming in going single payer, and the union and Baucus' staffers were like, no. it's off the table, and the disappointment was palpable.

We were directed to be "pragmatic," but what's pragmatic about a solution that doesn't control costs? That's why people don't have coverage right now or have shitty coverage.

Anyway, that's my analysis. I'm not sure Wyden is going to budge, he sounds like a man on a mission. And the Repos love him. And BCBS is there waiting to take down the PO plank, and Baucus himself is calling it a "bargaing chip" with the insurers. And the public still wants single payer.

Anyway, keep us up dated. We have the Finance committee staffers coming the 26, 27, and the 28th. I'll be there.

[slinkerwink]

34. I think ppl should have a choice between private health insurance

and the public option. I know plenty of Americans like their private insurance, and plenty that HATE their private insurance and would rather have a public option. I think it's best to be pro-choice in this instance. That's my own view though.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. i know the stratedgy. But it requires the tax payer to bribe the insurers to gett

hem to go along with it. And they already aren't going along with it.

Here's the problem. The people who want single payer don't like Obaucus cause it costs way too much and they see no advantage to a system that is too expensive.

The people who like there private insurance like Wyden, and they see no advantage to a system that's too expensive.

Only the people who want to switch back and forth between public and private insurance with no cost containment like O'baucus.

I hope I'm wrong, but politically I'd say pitting single payer directly against Wyden would have a much better chance than trying to be everything to everybody with no cost containment and in fact extra added costs.

Any way, I'll talk to you later. Have a good one!

[Aristus]

14. SLINK! Where have you been? I haven't seen you in ages!

Good to see you again! :hi:

[slinkerwink]

17. I've been over on Dailykos!

[Aristus]

31. Great site. Yet another website that helped me keep my sanity during the Dark Ages...

Great to have you back! :hug:

[slinkerwink]

35. same here too!

:toast:

[mmonk]

16. Thanks slinkerwink. Hope everything is well and thanks for

fighting the good fight.

[slinkerwink]

18. everything's good :-)

[mmonk]

20. Good to know.

:thumbsup:

[slinkerwink]

21. :-)

[alfredo]

23. Make the trigger one year. The insurance companies could wait

until the sixth year before doing anything.

[slinkerwink]

25. no triggers

[alfredo]

32. All they would do is lower pay for staff and do nothing to improve care or

lower costs to their victims (customers). These businesses have a huge sense of entitlement, and will not react well to any appeal to their humanity or patriotism. They have one year to prove they deserve to stay in business.

[redqueen]

36. Kick...

:kick:

[livefreest]

38. "so-called Democrats" is right

[redqueen]

39. Indeed it is.

:kick:

[grantcart]

40. excellent strategy thank you

[Faryn Balyncd]

41. The ones who could be leaders here are Kennedy, Brown, Feingold, Whitehouse.......

Kennedy has already indicated he might cave in to a Wyden/Bennett approach (no public option, mandatory insurance). If he goes to full support for that approach, that would be very bad news.

We need to contact Kennedy's office, and encourage him to stand firm in support of a public plan.

[nichomachus]

42. Sorry, but I don't want to fight for failure -- and the undercutting of single payer

The "public option" will be the dumping ground for people who are in ill health or prone to illness. As such, it will be a horrendously expensive program, since the private plans will cherry pick all the healthy people. This will allow opponents of single-payer universal health care to point to the public option and use it as an example of why government sponsored health insurance won't work.

We will end up worse off for at least another generation.

[hunter]

43. I agree.

It doesn't work. Even if the insurance companies were prohibited from cherry picking their clients they would simply provide crappier and crappier service to those clients they don't want.

People who are seriously ill or suffering certain chronic illnesses are usually not in a position to fight insurance companies for their own medical care. Insurance companies will inevitably find ways to dump or withhold treatment from unprofitable clients.

The U.S. health insurance industry needs to have a stake driven through its heart. Certainly there can be provisions for supplemental providers and organizations that contract with a single payer government plan, but there can be no provisions for the industry as it currently exists because that industry is directly responsible for the dismal state of the U.S. health care.

There are many health insurance CEO's who need to find a more ethical line of work, and a few who need to be in prison. The organizations they direct kill, maim, and bankrupt people, and this needs to stop.

[NewJeffCT]

44. strongly disagree

Medicare isn't allow to pick & choose who they cover, yet it's costs are far, far lower than comparable private plans that cover younger (and presumably healthier) people.

[nichomachus]

45. Sorry -- but you just proved my point

When you have private plans that WILL insure young, healthy people at very low cost -- a situation we have now -- then people will choose the private plan.

This is what will siphon off the younger, healthier people from the "public option," bringing about the scenario I mentioned -- which is the situation we have now.

The only way a public option can work is if it's like Medicare -- everyone is enrolled in it and those who can afford to can choose supplemental plans to provide additional benefits.

You just argued for universal single-payer health care -- not the plan that is being forced on us with the so-called "public option" attachment.

[NewJeffCT]

46. a lot of private plans suck

mediocre & inconsistent coverage, which is why most private insurance has like a 40% approval rating, if that. Give a senior citizen a chance for private coverage at the same rate as Medicare, and most of them will still pick Medicare.